Health Care Debate--What is so great about our current system?

I will start this out by saying that I don't know what the right answer is on Health Care. But I am in favor of Universal Health Coverage. Is that a Single Payer? Government-assisted Private coverage? I have some thoughts, but I'll get to that. Primarily, though, I want to debunk a few arguments that I keep hearing about from people who are against changes to the existing health system:

1. I have to wait to see a doctor--I love this myth. This notion that ONLY in the USA can you be afflicted with anything from the sniffles to imminently life-threatening stab wounds, and see a doctor INSTANTLY. As if emergency rooms don't exist in England, France, Russia, Brazil, etc. ONLY IN AMERICA.

I love people who say "I don't want to have to wait in line to see my doctor". I'd like to know who THEIR doctor is. I tried to get a physical from MY doctor in the USA. I have to wait 3 months. If I got shot in the leg three times, I could get right in, but for something non-life threatening, I have to wait forever in the US. So my question to those people who can get in to see their doctors faster for a routine check up is this, "what's wrong with your doctor that he/she has the capacity to see you at any time?"

The fact is, I wait for health services IN THE USA TOO! This notion that Universal Health Care will take away some fantastic efficiency we currently have, is nuts. The problem is, most people have been listening to this argument for years, to the point that they just nod their heads and say "yeah, I don't want to have to wait for a doctor..."

2. My taxes and costs will go up--Really? You sure about that? Let's take Canada as an example. Let's say I make $100k. Good salary, eh? What's my tax rate? About 36-43% (depending on which Provence you live in). Pretty high, eh? Okay, let's consider that my US Taxes would be about 30% (25% Federal plus 5% State, on average). So there's about a 6-13% additional tax rate, or a $6-13,000 benefit to the good citizens of the USA.

Hey! That's money in MY pocket. Now I can go out and find the best health care coverage! I have as much as $13,000! Only one problem. Average cost of health care for a family of 4 in the US? $12,000, and going up. Co-pays? I have a wife and two kids. I incurred about $3,000 in incidentals, co-pays, etc. last year So am I really making out here? Okay, I am willing to concede that this one could be a PUSH for younger, and perhaps even middle-aged people. Anyone on medication, or needing regular physician care should really start to look at these cost comparisons...

3. I don't want to be like Canada--So, I suppose that the only choice we have in the whole world is either the US model, or Canada's model? Why not the French model? It's the most popular in the world. Most people in France say they like their health system, and they don't seem to be struggling for doctors, new techniques, or the newest drugs. What about the Swiss? Their model looks more like what states like Massachusetts have done, with a federal mandate over purchasing health insurance, and covering the costs of amounts individuals cannot pay. Perhaps England has a model to copy.

And do we REALLY understand what Canada's model is anyway? We hear stories about people not getting in to see doctors, but let's look again at question 1 above. I personally hear stories about people in the US who can't get in to see their doctors too. Is that really a unique thing to Canada? Is it really better now in the US model?

4. Companies won't make as many drug breakthroughs--I love this one. So Pfizer is going to stop doing research on its newest drug to cure cancer because it can't charge 3X what it did before for a pill of Viagra? And since when did Universal health care include discussions on regulating the cost of prescription drugs? Personally, making a buck on the back of someone not having the ability to see a doctor when they are sick just doesn't sound very humane to me. We didn't like it when gas hit $4/gallon, everyone was suffering, and Exxon posted a gazillion dollar profit. Why is this one different? So Merck would stop spending on R&D? really? Because I thought that companies that made $10B in profits, and spent $2B on R&D may be able to take a haircut on profits, without cutting into R&D. But that's just me.

But hey, I'll concede this point too. Drug company price regulations could be left out of the bill...for now.

5. I don't want government controlling my health care decisions--How much control do you really have over these health care decisions now? Is anyone proposing that the Government take control over health care decisions? There have been no new powers of the Government proposed. And besides, in today's system, no one is forcing you to see certain doctors, only in certain networks, or demanding you to get referrals for certain types of illnesses to specialists, only to not cover the costs, because you forgot to fill out the claims forms in triplicate, using your middle initial on ALL THREE copies, are they? Oh wait, I forgot. You have an HMO...

6. I won't be able to see MY doctor--see point 5.

7. I'll be paying for someone Else's health coverage--This is the true American-style, "me first, I don't give a crap about anyone but myself" kind of attitude that just makes me so proud. If you can promise me that you will NEVER need a doctor for a surgery, procedure, drug, never get cancer, pregnant, Alzheimer's, or have a child with Asperger's syndrome, then you can make this claim. And I mean EVER. But for the rest of you, what do you think happens when you need a week in the hospital for care? Or two days for a baby delivery? SOMEONE ELSE'S PREMIUMS are paying for part of YOUR stay. That's the whole idea behind insurance.

Why do you think premiums are so high right now? Because for the 50-60 million Americans not insured, but going to the hospital anyway, YOU are paying for part of that.

I am not suggesting that Hospitals turn those people away. But if those people had basic health care, they could go to doctors and get check ups like everyone else, or visit without going to the emergency room, and run a lower cost.


In the end, health care coverage will probably look like the Massachusetts model. Everyone will have some form of it. They will pay for it privately, and without attaching it to Company employment. The Feds will have to help with a government pool for people who the private companies won't cover (smokers, cancer survivors, etc). It will probably lead to an increase in taxes, a leveling of, or slower increase in premiums, and a reduction in the fear of getting laid off and losing coverage.

In the end, that's a bargain I can live with. What I can't abide by, though, is this complete distortion of the facts on the news shows on the health care debate. I am willing to engage people on their points of view. But if anyone tries to give you one of these arguments, be sure to smack them on the back of the head for me?